Set in 1994, this case concerns a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal that is considering whether to proceed alone as the international partner and developer of a coal-fired electric power plant in Zhangze, China. The domestic partner, the government’s electric power agency, has proposed a build-operate-transfer (BOT) project financing in which Westmoreland Energy (WEI) would receive returns over 20 years and then exit. The internal rate of return on the project appears to exceed the CEO’s target rate, though the project developer, Dorothy Hampton, is concerned about a variety of risks and the appropriateness of the target hurdle rate. The tasks for the student are to evaluate the risks, estimate a target rate of return, exercise the valuation model (which is given in the case), and recommend any changes in the deal structure that can help WEI achieve its goals. The objectives of the case are to (1) exercise students’ capabilities in analyzing a complex investment-financing transaction from the standpoints of various project participants (the key tasks are risk analysis and valuation), (2) illustrate the financial effects of debt leverage and equity leverage (the focus of attention is on the creation of value and its sources, risk shifting, and wealth transfers), and (3) assess the characteristics and challenges of project financings and development projects in emerging economies.

Husk Power Systems, a young but widely celebrated firm based in India, needs $1.5 million to $2.5 million of expansion capital to grow quickly beyond the small footprint it had established in northeast India. It is a successful green energy enterprise that aimed to provide electricity to millions of rural Indians in a financially viable way. With 10 “mini power plants” that use rice husks as a fuel source and a presence in 25 isolated Indian villages as of April 2009, the company’s goal was to reach 350,000 to 400,000 consumers in 400 villages by the end of 2011. It is offered a convertible note financing structure by a cleantech private equity firm and needs to assess whether it suits the company’s and founders’ interests.

Case Name : Tata Power: Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability

Authors : Rama Deshmukh, Atanu Adhikari

Source : Ivey Publishing

Case ID : 910M13

Discipline : Entrepreneurship

Case Length : 18 pages

Solution Sample availability : YES

Plagiarism : NO (100% Original work)

Description for case is given below :

The case describes the strategic dilemma involved in making a decision on the method of operation of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) department for one of the leading Indian multinational corporations, Tata Power Company (TPC) from Tata Group of Companies. TPC had undertaken the CSR activities for decades, reflecting the company’s commitment towards sustainable energy generation without undue compromise to human and environmental development. These activities were undertaken as a voluntary initiative by the employees of TPC, and there was no separate CSR department. However, with large scale expansion, the need to have CSR as a separate entity was felt. The dilemma for the decision manager was whether to create a separate CSR department or continue with the existing set up. Other related issues needed to be addressed strategically as well as tactically to maintain a balance between shareholders’ interest and other stakeholders.

Medupi, rising from the dry Limpopo Province bush veld, was the first baseload project built in South Africa in 20 years. It would be the largest dry-cooled coal-fired power station in the world and was developed by Eskom, which generated 90 per cent of Southern Africa’s power, at an estimated cost of R125 billion. In spite of the worldwide concern about greener energy, coal remains the most popular power station fuel for South Africa, due to the country’s vast resources of 224 million tonnes annually. The new capacity Medupi would offer was sorely needed. Regular and nationwide load shedding, due to a shortage of capacity, affected the entire country during 2007 and 2008 and all businesses were asked to turn off non-essential lighting and equipment, even during the day. It had been no mean feat to keep to a project schedule that involved various suppliers providing different packages at different dates and also required accommodating several interfaces during both the design and implementation of the work on site. Due to the massive scale of the project as well as the highly specialized civil engineering required for different sections of Medupi’s construction, three companies joined forces to tackle the job, namely Murray & Roberts, Aveng and Concor. Murray & Roberts appointed Coenie Vermaak as project director at Medupi and at 34 the youngest project director in the group. The managers of the joint venture realized quickly that this would be “a project like no other.” The three companies’ different ways of working necessitated much more integrated coordination. For instance, employees from the different parent organizations had different job descriptions, were numerated differently, had different benefits, structures, processes and cultures.

This case examines the relationship between the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its member institutions, with a primary focus on how power evolves and is administered at an organizational level. Through a close look at the history of the NCAA, the case highlights the unique tale of the organization’s rise to power and its ability to regulate all collegiate athletics within the United States. In light of the increasing commercialization of collegiate athletics, the perceived cartel-like nature of the NCAA has brought into question the mission and core values of the non-profit organization and whether the NCAA truly has the best interests of its member institutions in mind. Facing antitrust lawsuits, scandals, the looming threat of the formation of super-conferences and a myriad of other issues, the NCAA must choose its path forward very carefully.